- Decision
- allowed, 10 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Jane Smith
- Authority
- Horsham (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6009593
- Application reference
- DC/26/0035
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Single self-build two-storey dwelling and relocation of existing stable
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside, PDL
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S3, S5(1)(e), S5(1)(d), TR3, HO7
- Development plan policies
- Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 1, 2, 4, 26, Storrington Sullington and Washington NP 2019 Policy 1
- Main issues
- suitable location for housing; S5 categories; access to services
Summary
One self-build house in the countryside outside any built-up area boundary, between two existing houses in a roadside group off the A24. Refused by Horsham; allowed on appeal. The site failed S5(1)(j) (not well-related to a settlement) but qualified as limited infilling within a group of houses under S5(1)(e), which has no well-related requirement; moderate car-dependence harm did not substantially outweigh the benefits.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties commented on the 2026 Framework after 17 Aug (DL ¶2).
- S5(1)(d) PDL: partial. Stable/hardstanding PDL, but paddock "does not clearly fall within the definition of PDL" (DL ¶12).
- S5(1)(j): FAIL. "relevant settlements exclude hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas … The nearest settlements … are all some distance away, and the site is not physically well-related to them" (DL ¶13).
- S5(1)(e): PASS. "It would be embedded within the established group of houses, in a position where a single additional dwelling could reasonably be classified as limited infilling, notwithstanding any encroachment beyond the existing extent of PDL" (DL ¶15). "Policy S5 does not require that proposals for redevelopment of PDL and/or limited infilling within groups of houses are physically well-related to a settlement, since that requirement only appears within parts 1h and 1j" (DL ¶16).
- TR3: moderate harm. "the development would not generate a significant amount of movement, given its small scale and the relatively short travel distances … A public transport service is also available … no more than moderate weight" (DL ¶19).
Planning balance
S5(1) balance. HO7 substantial weight (modest contribution, self-build, rural services) vs moderate travel harm: "the benefits of the development would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. In those circumstances, Policy S5 states that the development should be approved" (DL ¶22). Conflict with the development plan as a whole outweighed by "the presumption in favour of sustainable development as defined in national decision-making policies S3 and S5" (DL ¶23).
What made the difference
Physical form: the plot was a genuine gap in a cohesive roadside group, with houses either side fronting the same road — which unlocked S5(1)(e) despite the site not being near a settlement. Car dependence was accepted but scored only moderate because one dwelling generates little movement, a few very local facilities were walkable and a bus stop was close. A site at the end of a group, or one without any public transport, would be weaker.
Transferable points
- S5(1)(e) and S5(1)(d) do not carry the "physically well-related to a settlement" test; that test is only in (h) and (j) (DL ¶16).
- A hamlet or scattered roadside group is not a "settlement" for S5(1)(j) unless the development plan defines it as one (DL ¶13).
- Inspectors will apply an S5 limb neither party argued where S5 as a whole is in play (DL ¶14).
- TR3 harm from a single dwelling can be moderate even where most daily needs require a car, given small trip generation (DL ¶19).
- Local-plan boundary conflict can be outweighed by the S3/S5 presumption (DL ¶23).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(d) | pass | stable and hardstanding accepted as PDL, but development extends into paddock which is not clearly PDL (DL 12) | |
| S5(1)(j) | fail | significant shortfall undisputed but site not physically well-related to a settlement; hamlets/scattered groups excluded by Annex B definition (DL 13) | |
| S5(1)(e) | pass | inspector raised it herself; single dwelling in a gap between two houses fronting Spring Gardens is "limited infilling within groups of houses" (DL 14-15) | |
| TR3 | harm | moderate | car reliance for most needs; farm shop/cafe walkable, useful bus on A24; small scale → no significant movement (DL 17-19) |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | HO7 substantial weight to homes meeting evidenced needs; modest contribution to sizable shortfall; self-build (DL 21) |
| HDPF 2, 4, 26 | conflict | outside BUAB; conflict with plan as a whole outweighed by S3/S5 presumption (DL 23) |
Key facts
- One self-build house on a plot between 1 Spring Gardens and The Orchard, fronting the same road, off the A24 dual carriageway
- Council had a "significant shortfall" in housing land supply (figure not stated in letter)
- Ashington village cannot realistically be reached on foot or bike across the dual carriageway; bus stops very close
- Self-build secured by s106 with BNG fallback if not occupied as self-build
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.